On January 6, 2015, three Central American immigrant mothers and their children filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") against the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and United ...
read more >

On January 6, 2015, three Central American immigrant mothers and their children filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") against the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). The plaintiffs, represented by private and public interest counsel, seek certification of a class of all persons who have been or will be detained in ICE facilities; who have been or will be determined to have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries; and who are eligible for release, but have been denied such release pursuant to ICE's blanket "No-Release Policy." In addition to class certification, the plaintiffs asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the No-Release Policy violates the APA, the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the No-Release Policy violates the INA and Plaintiff's due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by denying plaintiffs individualized custody determinations, instead basing such determinations on a policy of deterring future immigration. The plaintiffs also claimed the policy is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction the same day they filed their complaint.

On February 20, 2015, the District Court (Judge James E. Boasberg) issued a memorandum opinion granting plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, and denying defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court found that, although an across-the-board ICE policy aimed at denying all release to asylum-seeking Central American families did not exist, there was "ample support in the record" to find that DHS requires ICE officers "to consider deterrence of mass migration as a factor in custody determinations, and that this policy has played a significant role in the recent increased detention of Central American mothers and children." The Court also found that this policy "contributed to the near universal detention of Central American families since June 2014." The Court held that plaintiffs had standing to challenge this policy, as they satisfied the requirements for class certification under the relation back doctrine. In ruling on the merits of a preliminary injunction, the Court held that Plaintiffs had "significant likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claim," and stated that DHS's approach to detention did not comport with "traditional purposes" and was "poorly substantiated." The Court also held that: plaintiffs were likely to face irreparable harm without injunctive relief; the public interest would be served by an injunction; and the government could not be harmed from an injunction that ends an unlawful practice. R.I.L-R v. Johnson, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, No. 15-cv-11, 2015 WL 737117 (D.D.C. Feb. 20, 2015).

All persons who have been or will be detained in ICE family detention facilities; have been or will be determined to have a credible fear of persecution in their home country; and are eligible for release on bond, recognizance, or other conditions, but have been or will be denied such release pursuant to DHS’s blanket policy of denying release to detained families without conducting an individualized determination of flight risk or danger to the community.